Revoking Support For US Government
To command respect, the US government must respect We the People.
When the US Government Defies The Supreme Law
Iraq is a reminder that, even when the US government ignores the rule of law, prudence and the laws of war eternally check abusive power. American tyranny can be defeated when American leaders violate or ignore the laws of war – enemy combatants can lawfully engage in reciprocity and use lawful use of force to oppose what American civilians did not prevent: Illegal warfare.
Iraq is a curious distraction for the US government. The bigger the mess it finds itself, the less able it is to impose all its resources on American citizens. This does not mean that because the American is distracted overseas will have fewer resources to abuse American citizens; rather, the same abusive system which targets Iraqis is also mobilized to target American civilians.
What’s been curious is despite the lessons of Vietnam, the US defied the Constitution 2001-2006 and waged an imprudent, illegal war. Time hasn’t made the lessons ripe, only created another generation exposed to needless suffering and excuses to defy reality, law and facts.
___ How long will US citizens, after this abuse of 2001-2006, maintain their memory and institutionalize reforms?
___ Will the era of reforms, even if it does arrive, institutionalize the lessons and remedies in a manner that will prevent their being thwarted as the US government has thwarted the FISA Act and laws of war?
____ Will future abuse of power me more forcefully checked and given less deference?
The US government can be less confident of support. American citizens retain the rights and power to lawfully change their government, create a new Constitution, and share evidence of criminal activity with international actors.
A government that engages in war crimes cannot be lawfully supported.
___ How severe must the war crimes be before American citizens are lawfully, as a protected right under the Constitution, entitled to take up arms and defeat what remains a threat to the Rule of Law?
What others in Iraq have done – lawfully taken up arms to defeat illegal activity and abuse of power – can lawfully be done worldwide. US Citizens cannot be expected to remain silent, especially when a government becomes adversarial to the notion of law and respect for basic rights.
US combat forces are stretched. They are wanting for equipment. Their depots are not mobilized. American citizens need only blink once, and the US government will grind to a halt.
The longer the US government is stuck in the mess in Iraq and fails, the less power they have to focus at the US population. US citizens, although they may not have taken up arms to defeat an illegal combatant – the US government – can rest assured others around the globe are willing to oppose what is not lawful.
We are not obligated to remain loyal to a system of governance which is more interested in abuse of power; nor are we required to cooperate with what is antithetical to the founding documents. Whether the US government, as it diverges from the rule of law, survives, is defeated, or is lawfully destroyed is not the issue; the government is not the same as the Constitution.
No credible case can be made the abuses were for our own good; the illegal activity did not start after the events of Sept 2001, nor in response to a specific threat. The illegal activity started before Sept 2001; despite the illegal activity, the threat was not thwarted. We have been told, not asked, to give up rights to defend ourselves against what was not defended.
The outlook for the US Constitution and rule of law are much brighter than the US government. Reality is a check on power. Americans know what’s possible – not just by way of abuse, but what can be done to force a government to comply with the law.
The US cannot abuse power without facing repercussions. When the US government refuses to check power, insurgents, foreign fighters, and world political standing are foreseeable checks. Even when the US abuses power, and financial markets react by way of capital flight, the financial consequences can be measured in lost trade, investment and standard of living. Something else can replace what fails, or proves unworkable and abusive.
The authorization for force was not a declaration for war. The laws of war are required, and cannot be ignored; otherwise, the laws of peace must be applied. One cannot credibly argue that we are at war, and the laws of war do not apply, while ignoring the laws of peace. This is the law of barbarism.
The RNC cannot be sure of continued support for the President. His party is seeing the illegal activity as criminal, not a necessary compromise on the rule of law. Some may view the US engagement with Iran in terms of what the US, as a Cold War Superpower, may hope to impose. This is not the Cold War; America’s defeat in Iraq shows it is not a superpower, but a super paper tiger. Victory may be desired, but it is not necessarily linked with any action, plan, or effort. The desire for a gain does not mean the gain is realized.
American citizens should relish the results of Iraq. The American government, on tip of the lies and abuse of power, has been shown to have finite, ineffectual power. This was a war of choice on an artificial timeline.
The US government is at its limit of power. The opposition is emboldened at home and abroad. There is a backlash for defying Geneva. This government faces quite a disaster, and it did not listen to the words of warn.
This problem is not the American public’s to solve. The disaster is one for the US government to wade through. It is not over. The American government’s defeat should be a wakeup call to the US government, but it will be used as an excuse to abuse power. Remember, the US government can be defeated lawfully; and there is a difference between the US government and the US Constitution.
The President got himself into this box. He took credit on the USS Abraham Lincoln for the “Mission Accomplished.” The mission was unclear, and it was not accomplished. He must take responsibility for the failure. One man cannot enjoy only the credit, while making others endure the failure.
This is a problem for the US government to solve. Let the GOP succeed or fail in governance; there is no need for anyone in the DNC in Congress to view the President’s disaster as one Congress should solve. Let the Commander in Chief take Command of his defeat.
If Congress if forced to take any position on the disaster, the way forward is to impeach the President for maladministration, ineptitude, incompetence, and defying his oath. Dress it as you will. The republicans in the Senate are the roadblock to the needed remedy: removal; and the Democrats in the House are the roadblock to the beginning: The needed charge of a crime -- maladministration.
Regardless what this President does, this disaster in Iraq is a GOP-US government problem and mess. Indeed, the DNC is all bust assured a White House victory in 2008; the role of the House DNC is to prepare for that outcome, not wait for what may prove to be a transitory desire.
The worse the disaster in Iraq, the less time there is to implement options. Opportunity is not a single window; some options may fall by the wayside, no longer possible to exercise. However, that an option might have a limited window does not mean that window should be selected. There are other options.
There can be now reward for failed leadership. This President is in a no-win situation and a mess. The further the quagmire spreads, the more questions there will be on the 17 GOP Senators who question whether new leadership is needed, or will make a difference.
It is always another option to find new leadership. Marginal improvements over this President could pay great dividends.
On Iraq, the issue is not whether the President will or will not make the right choice; but whether he is capable of making the needed choice: The choice to resign – his surrender.
A sign of a bad defeat is when the US does not comprehend, “Losers cannot impose terms.” Despite losing, the US acts as if it has the sole power to impose options on Iraq and Iran, failing to consider other players may have more viable options.
Saddam may have been the least-worst option. The US does have options. Whether the US leadership collectively chooses to explore all options, or pretend it is constrained to losing options is a separate issue. The way forward does not necessarily include the United Sates government; it does include a way forward.
Even if the US were to accept defeat and openly, responsibly invite other nations to share in the spoils, neither Iran, Russia, nor Syria necessarily is obligated to come to the assistance of the US interests. The US could offer many things, but no other nation is obliged to respond. The Saudis and Iranians will maintain stability within their borders. The US cannot credibly argue, much less credibly impose democracy as an alternative.
Iraqis have chosen civil war. America forgets the bad aspects of Democracy – the free choice of people to wage war against each other on the battlefield.
Iraqis have chosen to oppose an invasion and occupation. Americans have forgotten the abuse which inspired the Bill of Rights – the document which defied the abuses of the British occupation.
US power has limits. Other regional actors are positioned to replace the American power. Iran is not obligated to do anything. Other actors may enter, leave, and discuss options without involving the United States.
American documents related to Iran have been classified not because they have new information, but because they couch the open information in terms of the US options and negotiating assumptions. The documents identify US assumptions; whether those options and assumptions are flawed is a separate issue.
US options in Iraq fail to explore the larger issues and other options. Some have suggested that something must be done to ensure victory. Victory, although it might be desired, cannot be an option when victory is impossible, however defined.
American leaders propose only working with Iran on specific terms. Iran is not obligated to agree. America is not positioned to compel Iran to do anything. America is unaccustomed to the role of a defeated nation. It will learn, and the world does not need to relive the lessons of WWI Versailles to comprehend that a wounded America can return as a larger bully. Americans are outnumbered, but not controlled by a failed government; Americans have a failed government than can be remedied.
America shows a lack of respect for its history, and that of the Iraqis choice.
America has given Iraqis the right to choose. Democracy means a choice about how to succeed or fail; whether to support or oppose a government. Iraqis have chosen to follow the American model – freely choosing to wage war against abusive power, as Americans did against the British; and in engaging in a civil war.
Civil war is only permissible in America’s mind if viewed in hindsight from the victor’s perspective. Civil war is not comfortable when America, regardless its choice cannot win, and is viewed as destroying the glue which prevented civil war.
America has not considered Iraqi sovereignty:
___ What do Iraqis want
___ What of the Iraqi refugees in Jordan, Syria, Turkey, and Iran
___ What options has the ISG outlined which the Iraqis might support, but the President opposes
___ When will the US leadership realize that Iraq is not a state of the Untied States, but free to oppose occupation, and free to create an alliance to rid itself of what the Iraqi people do not want?
Americas disagree with the Iraqis course, just as British disagreed with the Colonies. Victory meant the disagreement was over. America fails to comprehend the finality of its defeat – ultimate power, when abused ultimately, failed. There are no other options for the US government.
The US is not in a position to decide “what is in the interests of Iraq.” Iraqis have made the choice: Without a strong central leader, they have chosen to permit civil war; they would rather fight each other and the occupation than enjoy peace. Let them have their choice.
The Saudis, Syrians, Jordanians, Turks, and Iranians are in control of their governments. As with Lebanon, if Iraq fails but the US provides no solution, other parties are in a position to intervene. Syria and Iran may enter Iraq to prevent the instability from spreading.
The US cannot claim its invasion was good, while Iran or Syria’s like invasion is different. Any public comments America makes about other nations’ response to Iraq could be said of America’s: What is illegal for others is illegal for the US. We have one standard of international law, not the US version and one that applies to everyone else. The US no longer has the military or moral authority to enforce its world view, much less the world view of stability or law and order.
Americans must consider what is the most responsible course of action in light of the Saudi, Iranian, and Syrian interests – but most of all the Iraqis.
The Senate and House will have to review the President’s competence. Distractions abroad conveniently shift accountability.
On Iraq, the issue is the lack of confidence in the President’s competence to decide. Whether those options are good or bad is irrelevant. It was foreseeable there would be a mess; the question was whether the President would accept he made the mess, or bungled the mismanagement of that mess.
This President is stuck. Americans should be cautious of what this President might do to distract attention. US troops should review their oath of office; they are not to engage in a coup; nor is it lawful to impose martial law in the US to address the instability in Baghdad. The role of the US military is to enforce, protect, and defend the Constitution; not permit its destruction as it obeys illegal orders. The military exists to assert power where it is lawful and maintain the Constitution. The ultimate justice for this President is a war crimes conviction; in the interim, the Legislature has the power to impeach and remove the President from office.
Changing position requires us knowing where we are changing from. This government is not clear on reality; there is no prospect it can credibly argue for or against change – it doesn’t know what is being avoided or embraced.
___ What will the NeoCons and GOP do to change the subject, further defying the Constitution?
It is incorrect to argue, “There are no better options.” The other options have been rejected without serious consideration by incompetent leaders. Valuable ideas have been cast aside by an incompetent President. The President refuses to face reality. There is no prospect he understands what is needed, how the change will come about, or what new outcomes he hopes to achieve.
Victory is not a strategy. It is a meaningless desire, especially when that victory is unclear, unachievable, and has not been sufficiently supported by this President. This war is his war to claim as his: Credit for defying the law, and the responsibility for being accountable for what he freely chose to do – Defying Our Will.
If Democracy has succeeded, it means that free people may choose to defy abusive power; and engage in civil war. Perhaps the GOP would prefer a civil war in America as a pretext to remove habeas. The error is to ignore the illegal insurrection this GOP has incited. Congress has the solve power to decide when there has been an illegal GOP insurrection and rebellion against the US Constitution.
___ When will Congress find that the GOP has illegally engaged in rebellion against the US Constitution?
___ When will the NeoCons be stripped of the right to Habeas for their unlawful insurrection against the rule of law at home and abroad?
___ When will the Republican Party be denied the power to claim habeas for the reckless DoJ Staff Counsel who enjoy making excuses to ignore the rule of law; but claim those rights must be protected when their discretion to abuse power is challenged?
The DoJ Staff cannot have it both ways. They have asserted a superior right to ignore Geneva; then claimed the Hamdan-affirmed requirements do not have to be respected. This dispute is one for the US government to resolve, not for We the People to have shoved down our throat.
Where the US government – in all three branches – shows that it defies the law and Geneva Conventions, it is no longer legitimate. IT may be lawfully opposed and replaced with a new government that pays a marginally better respect to the US Constitution.
Where the US Government chooses to ignore Geneva and the laws of war – in stripping prisoners of rights which Geneva recognizes, without the required declaration to strip those prisoners of those rights – the US government is no longer legitimate.
Treasure the disaster the US government finds itself. This is the problem for the US government to resolve. It has attempted to use force, and failed; and it no longer can credibly threaten anyone or any nation with force – unless it illegally uses nuclear weapons.
The American bully is on the ground. American citizens should not rush to its aid, but stand back, and let the world community – the victims of that bully’s abuse – pounce, and remind the bully that he is alone, insecure, and powerless. We the People are not obligated to defend a bully; we are obligated to permit the victims of that bully lawfully assert their power, especially when they legally assert power in the only forum this bully recognizes, but has been defeated – the battlefield.
This bully had a choice between the rule of law and battle. It chose one forum over another, and did not prevail. Bad choice. We are not obligated to enable that bad choice, but permit the bully to suffer in the forum it prefers to be defeated – the battlefield.
The US desire for stability is meaningless when it has no power or track record of maintaining stability.
Deciding on “victory” is speculative. What is desired is meaningless. There is no viable plan, only a hope. That is not prudent, nor linked with reality or resources.
That something is “not desired” is insufficient to prevent it from being realized.
The US government desires your support. The US government is not the same as the US Constitution. The US government does not deserve your support – it chose illegal use of power over the Constitution. It chose poorly.
The US government and this President made poor choices. We the People should permit the US government and this President to suffer the full consequences of having made a poor choice: Defying the US Constitution, rule of law, and laws of war in the Geneva Conventions.
We the People have no reason to support what is folly, especially when the leadership prefers folly on the battlefield over prudence before the court of law.
They wished this.
Going forward
The US Constitution will survive only if there is eternal vigilance. If the legal system will not permit free people to assert their rights and power to defend their liberty, the system cannot be supported. When the US government agrees to illegally support an illegal insurrection against the US Constitution, We the People may conclude it no longer commands respect, and may be lawfully targeted for like treatment. The government is outnumbered by the sovereign – We the People, the source of all power.
There is no reason to support the US government at it destroys the US Constitution.
There is no reason for any American to associate with, contract, or interact with any contractor or US government official – they are alleged complicity with war crimes.
American citizens should prepare for the end of this American government. The Constitution shall prevail. Power shall be limited. This US government shall be lawfully transformed at the hands of internal and external forces beyond the US government’s ability to manage, must less defeat.
Victory belongs to We the People – the source of all power. This US government, when delegated power, poorly managed its affairs, squandered our Prestige, and has made us less secure and less safe. This US government is the definition of tyranny, violating rights, and abusing power on any pretext. It cannot expect any American to come to its defense.
We the People can choose our Constitution over the abusive US Government. We may lawfully believe that foreign fighters remain one of the few credible checks on US power; and we may believe that the Constitution shall outlast the US Government.
The US Constitution is safe. The US government is less secure, and not as confident. We the People can choose safety over insecurity. The rule of law shall prevail.
posted by Constant @ 2:27 PM
<< Home